George Floyd killing and the aftermath

[Shaps]

I mean, I didn't name you specifically, but people have doxxed one of the jurors and posted up her FB. If you feel the shoe fits though...

If you don't like the legal system in the US, however, you can move to a place more suitable. North Korea completely controls social media in their country so you might like it there.

?

How do you keep twisting what I'm saying?

230 gives protections to Social Media companies to act as PLATFORMS not PUBLISHERS.

When Social Media companies determine what they will take down, things that do NOT violate 1st Amendment laws, they are breaking the agreement they made to ensure those protections.

When they do that, they are limiting the FREE SPEECH of all of us.

I want them to adhere to the agreement and allow people to say what they want, without fear of being removed just because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

You keep trying to twist what I'm saying, not going to let that happen.

And what? "didn't name me specifically.. but if the shoe fits"? - are you going dumb or something? Not even sure how to reply to your blatant misunderstanding.

You literally made my case for me... "people have doxxed one of the jurors"... No shit sherlock... it's called intimidation.. which is abhorrent and unduly influenced the jury. But in a later post you say "I don't think they were scared....".

Swear your only using half your brain with this thread.

[Gelston]

?

How do you keep twisting what I'm saying?

230 gives protections to Social Media companies to act as PLATFORMS not PUBLISHERS.

When Social Media companies determine what they will take down, things that do NOT violate 1st Amendment laws, they are breaking the agreement they made to ensure those protections.

When they do that, they are limiting the FREE SPEECH of all of us.

I want them to adhere to the agreement and allow people to say what they want, without fear of being removed just because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

You keep trying to twist what I'm saying, not going to let that happen.

And what? "didn't name me specifically.. but if the shoe fits"? - are you going dumb or something? Not even sure how to reply to your blatant misunderstanding.

You literally made my case for me... "people have doxxed one of the jurors"... No shit sherlock... it's called intimidation.. which is abhorrent and unduly influenced the jury. But in a later post you say "I don't think they were scared....".

Swear your only using half your brain with this thread.

Whatever you red China communist asshole. Why don’t you go socialize social media elsewhere.

[Ashliana]

In this thread: Yet another example of poorly informed right-wing idiots that have no idea what §230 does, or doesn't, do.

230 gives protections to Social Media companies to act as PLATFORMS not PUBLISHERS. When Social Media companies determine what they will take down, things that do NOT violate 1st Amendment laws, they are breaking the agreement they made to ensure those protections. When they do that, they are limiting the FREE SPEECH of all of us.

Wrong. You don't know the first thing about §230. You've uncritically internalized -- and are shitting out -- poorly conceived right-wing nonsense. Literally two seconds of research debunks the entire basis that makes up your profoundly retarded position.

I want them to adhere to the agreement and allow people to say what they want, without fear of being removed just because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

There is no such "agreement." You have absolutely no right to a private company's platform. This is America. If you want to start a competitor, have at it. Nobody's going to join it, shit-for-brains.

Swear your only using half your brain with this thread.

The cherry on top to your mountain of ignorance is you insulting Gelston's intelligence when your argument is made up of total nonsense, and you don't know the difference between your and you're.

[drauz]

This is true, but most people don't give a shit about the facts even after they come out because their agenda comes before everything else, and the rest are too stupid to question anything they're being fed, so the issue just gets worse and worse and never gets corrected.

TLDR: People are stupid as fuck and democrats take advantage of this way more effectively than republicans do.

[drauz]

When Social Media companies determine what they will take down, things that do NOT violate 1st Amendment laws, they are breaking the agreement they made to ensure those protections.

When they do that, they are limiting the FREE SPEECH of all of us.

Real question, have you actually read it? Just read section C-2-A. Fuck it I'll post it again for you. It's all there in black and white.

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

For the last time , you do not have freedom of speech on a private company's platform. You never did. It only applies to the government restricting your speech.

[~Rocktar~]

Real question, have you actually read it? Just read section C-2-A. Fuck it I'll post it again for you. It's all there in black and white.



For the last time , you do not have freedom of speech on a private company's platform. You never did. It only applies to the government restricting your speech.

The key words you are ignoring and the precedent set by the rules of the FCC to enforce the communications act are "in good faith". The actions being taken are not in good faith and have been proven to not be in good faith and this has been documented over and over. Just because you and the rest of the Leftist apologists support censorship, a fabrication about the understanding of the law and how it applies and unequal application of the law doesn't make you right. The law is clear, the rules are clear and they need to be enforced equally and they aren't. Simple as that.

[drauz]

The key words you are ignoring and the precedent set by the rules of the FCC to enforce the communications act are "in good faith". The actions being taken are not in good faith and have been proven to not be in good faith and this has been documented over and over. Just because you and the rest of the Leftist apologists support censorship, a fabrication about the understanding of the law and how it applies and unequal application of the law doesn't make you right. The law is clear, the rules are clear and they need to be enforced equally and they aren't. Simple as that.

What proof?

[Methais]

What proof?

120

[Ashliana]

Real question, have you actually read it? Just read section C-2-A. Fuck it I'll post it again for you. It's all there in black and white.

For the last time , you do not have freedom of speech on a private company's platform. You never did. It only applies to the government restricting your speech.

The key words you are ignoring and the precedent set by the rules of the FCC to enforce the communications act are "in good faith". The actions being taken are not in good faith and have been proven to not be in good faith and this has been documented over and over.

It couldn't be clearer that you don't know anything about this law, or about the law. "Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.."

Anything that the company finds "objectionable" -- even if it's politically charged or you disagree with their action -- is totally fine. You have absolutely no argument, and you think simply wishing the law were something other than it is will magically transform the law to suit your delusions.

Just because you and the rest of the Leftist apologists support censorship, a fabrication about the understanding of the law and how it applies and unequal application of the law doesn't make you right. The law is clear, the rules are clear and they need to be enforced equally and they aren't. Simple as that.

Just because you and the rest of the right-wing apologists support censorship -- government infringement of corporations' free speech rights -- and oppose the free market, have completely made up bullshit regarding a law you haven't read, have no idea how the law works, doesn't make you right. The law is indeed clear, the rules are indeed clear, but sadly, you think your ignorance of how they work somehow matters. Simple as that.

[Neveragain]

Can't wait to review this thread 10 - 15 years from now.